2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[I’m not Stu]

[jimrtex]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

The plaintiffs in the case provided alternatives with a district made up of northern Baton Rouge along with the Delta area and carefully drawn intrusions into Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette to get above 50% CVAP.

The interesting part of the case is that no constitutional claims were brought, and thus no three-judge panel. That is, there is no claim that the map violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, but rather violates a federal statute intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.

This also means that there is no direct appeal to the SCOTUS.

[Torie]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

The plaintiffs in the case provided alternatives with a district made up of northern Baton Rouge along with the Delta area and carefully drawn intrusions into Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette to get above 50% CVAP.

The interesting part of the case is that no constitutional claims were brought, and thus no three-judge panel. That is, there is no claim that the map violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, but rather violates a federal statute intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.

This also means that there is no direct appeal to the SCOTUS.

The VRA is a federal statute, so SCOTUS can take the case if it wants it after the appellate court makes a final judgement. I think the compact issue is a close one, with the definition of what compact means at the margins ambiguous. Is a district that does not look too bad visually but travels over white rural areas of some distance to take in the black neighborhoods, and only the black neighborhoods of three sizable cities from its Baton Rouge core, compact?

I suspect at some point SCOTUS if it keeps the Gingles concept will want a clearer definition. And perhaps the most likely "cleanup" would be that if one can draw a 50% BVAP CD that comports with neutral redistricting principles, then a performing black district must be drawn. The CD described above does not.  I think even in the academic world now, taking in pieces but not the whole of disparate cities not in the same metro area (disparate maybe meaning two, but certainly three or more) does not hew to neutral principles.

For example, if in the map below, LA-06 were 50% BVAP, then it must be drawn. A codical could be that if LA-06 as drawn that way, makes it impossible for LA-02 to be 50% BVAP, LA-02 must still be drawn as a minority performing CD. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4415fa63-dc85-4946-bcc2-6a572e7616e7

[lividnyx]

And here's the petition for cert

https://vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media/documents/Em._App._for_Admin._Stay_Stay_Pdg._Appeal_and_Writ_of_Cert._6.17.22.pdf

[Torie]

And here's the petition for cert

https://vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media/documents/Em._App._for_Admin._Stay_Stay_Pdg._Appeal_and_Writ_of_Cert._6.17.22.pdf

Thank you for the link. It is required reading for those who want to master a granular understanding of Gingles, unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, and the existing attendant ambiguities. The brief is extraordinarily well written in many places, while also disingenuous and misleading in others.

Aside from the merits of issuing a stay (probably meritorious, but not slam dunk for a reason not mentioned at all in the brief, to wit that the 59% BVAP erose LA-02 that was drawn by the legislature traveling up the river to take in black precincts and excluding white ones, is in and of itself most probably an illegal black pack racial gerrymander), to cut though all the sound and fury and obfuscation, three issues are presented that SCOTUS most urgently needs to resolve:

1. Under Gingles, what is the definition of a compact minority population?

2. Can a district be found compact while the minority population therein deemed not compact for purposes of applying the Gingles test?

3. Under what circumstances, if any, does drawing a district  that contains a compact  minority population under Gingles, constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander?

The resolution of the above questions would resolve the issue of whether, when a district that looks "compact," but fails to hew to neutral redistricting principles, and splits disparate counties and municipalities to include minority population nodes and exclude non minority populations therein, it 1) must be drawn if 50% minority VAP, or 2) cannot be drawn because it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

It is rare to have a legal issue where it comes down to must or cannot, as opposed to may, but this is one of them.

[jimrtex]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

The plaintiffs in the case provided alternatives with a district made up of northern Baton Rouge along with the Delta area and carefully drawn intrusions into Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette to get above 50% CVAP.

The interesting part of the case is that no constitutional claims were brought, and thus no three-judge panel. That is, there is no claim that the map violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, but rather violates a federal statute intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.

This also means that there is no direct appeal to the SCOTUS.

The VRA is a federal statute, so SCOTUS can take the case if it wants it after the appellate court makes a final judgement. I think the compact issue is a close one, with the definition of what compact means at the margins ambiguous. Is a district that does not look too bad visually but travels over white rural areas of some distance to take in the black neighborhoods, and only the black neighborhoods of three sizable cities from its Baton Rouge core, compact?

I suspect at some point SCOTUS if it keeps the Gingles concept will want a clearer definition. And perhaps the most likely "cleanup" would be that if one can draw a 50% BVAP CD that comports with neutral redistricting principles, then a performing black district must be drawn. The CD described above does not.  I think even in the academic world now, taking in pieces but not the whole of disparate cities not in the same metro area (disparate maybe meaning two, but certainly three or more) does not hew to neutral principles.

For example, if in the map below, LA-06 were 50% BVAP, then it must be drawn. A codical could be that if LA-06 as drawn that way, makes it impossible for LA-02 to be 50% BVAP, LA-02 must still be drawn as a minority performing CD. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4415fa63-dc85-4946-bcc2-6a572e7616e7

The Gingles Test was devised in the context of multi-member districts, in particular those of the North Carolina legislature. Under the North Carolina Constitution, counties may not be divided by legislative districts. So for example in 1981, Mecklenburg (Charlotte) had 8 representatives, and Wake (Raleigh) 6 representatives elected at large.

If all the blacks vote one way, and a significant majority of whites vote the other way then the other, any candidate preferred by black will lose. If you can go into a voting booth and flip the levers, but to no effect, has your right to vote been infringed? Not if you voted for Mickey Mouse. But what if you and almost all your neighbors voted for Adam Clayton Powell and the effect was indistinguishable from if you had been barred from the polling place?

That seems a reasonable decision, and would simply require election from single-member districts. Single member districts had already been ordered in Texas by White v Regester. The SCOTUS would think they were setting an objective standard for use in cities and counties. Compact area means an area of residential segregation, a ghetto or barrio. Enough to form a majority in a single-member district means that there is sufficient population to create a minority-majority district. And in an area electing multiple members there may well be a white population voting differently than the black population in at-large election (I'm not sure what the difference between cohesive voting and bloc voting is).

While there might be some variation it is not too likely that the compact area in a city or county that elected five or eight members just happened to have 51% black population in two districts. There might be enough for 1.4 districts in which case you could divide it between two districts, one 80% black and one 60% black.

If Louisiana were going to elect its 6 representatives at large, they would likely all be Republicans. To satisfy the Gingles test you would probably try to draw a district based in New Orleans, but might have come up the river to Baton Rouge to get sufficient population for one district. You wouldn't also include areas of Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette as a compact minority population.

You can't assign students to schools based on race at least since Brown v Board or Education, and drawing attendance zones to have the same effect is going to be suspect (e.g. if you follow the railroad tracks and most of the black population lives on one side of the tracks, and there happens to be a school building built in 1923 that used to be
the black high school, and the school on the other side of town was built in 2017 and is known as "The Glass Palace" you are going to be suspected of operating a segregated school system even though some blacks attend that school.

The same is true with congressional districts. You can't assign voters on the basis of race. But if we had recorded whomever drew the illustrative districts, it is quite likely you would see them fiddling around going into Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette for the purpose of getting the BVAP over 50%. I can't distinguish between assigning blacks to a district, and drawing a line that includes them in that district.

The point about the VRA vs. the Constitution, is that under current statute, claims based on the 14th and 15th Amendment are held before a 3-judge panel, with any appeal going directly to Supreme Court. The SCOTUS does not have discretion to take or not take the case - they may choose not to hear a case but will issue a ruling.

That is not true for cases based on statute. This is true even though the basis of the federal government intervening in the state legislative process is enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments. So in Louisiana because the plaintiffs are not claiming that the congressional districts violate the constitution, the case was heard by a single district judge who happened to be appointed by Obama. Any appeal will go up through the Appeals Court. Had it been heard by a 3-judge panel composed of a district court judge, another district judge from the circuit, and an appellate judge, the process would likely have been more deliberate and the SCOTUS would recognize that the same issues as in Alabama are in play.

[Torie]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

[jimrtex]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

Your map illustrates that blacks are widely dispersed in Louisiana, with BVAP in LA-3 24.6%; LA-4 33.8%, LA-5 32.9%, LA-6 34.2%. Only in a large city such as New Orleans or Baton Rouge can you gather enough blacks in a compact area that constitute a majority.

Your LA-2 has BVAP of 47.0% demonstrates what neither the State or the plaintiffs want to show that you can't draw a reasonable district with a majority BVAP in Louisiana.

Both the State and the plaintiffs have stipulated that LA-2 is a Gingles district. I think that it would be a mess to litigate.

The legislature adjourned the special session on Saturday. So the federal district court judge will impose her plan which will continue to be litigated.

This is the only bill that got through committee but was pulled after it was clear that it could not be passed.

SB 3 (PDF)

Scroll down to see demographics and maps.

[Torie]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

Your map illustrates that blacks are widely dispersed in Louisiana, with BVAP in LA-3 24.6%; LA-4 33.8%, LA-5 32.9%, LA-6 34.2%. Only in a large city such as New Orleans or Baton Rouge can you gather enough blacks in a compact area that constitute a majority.

Your LA-2 has BVAP of 47.0% demonstrates what neither the State or the plaintiffs want to show that you can't draw a reasonable district with a majority BVAP in Louisiana.

Both the State and the plaintiffs have stipulated that LA-2 is a Gingles district. I think that it would be a mess to litigate.

The legislature adjourned the special session on Saturday. So the federal district court judge will impose her plan which will continue to be litigated.

This is the only bill that got through committee but was pulled after it was clear that it could not be passed.

SB 3 (PDF)

Scroll down to see demographics and maps.

I don't want to beat this drum until it has no sound, but you can get to the Gingles percentage for LA-02 without creating too much of a mess as to compactness, athough you do have to do quite a lot of jurisdiction splitting. Having said that, LA-02 may well not be  Gingles CD because the voting pattern is not that racially polarized in NO and Jefferson Parish. There are a significant number of loyal white Democrats.

[jimrtex]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

Your map illustrates that blacks are widely dispersed in Louisiana, with BVAP in LA-3 24.6%; LA-4 33.8%, LA-5 32.9%, LA-6 34.2%. Only in a large city such as New Orleans or Baton Rouge can you gather enough blacks in a compact area that constitute a majority.

Your LA-2 has BVAP of 47.0% demonstrates what neither the State or the plaintiffs want to show that you can't draw a reasonable district with a majority BVAP in Louisiana.

Both the State and the plaintiffs have stipulated that LA-2 is a Gingles district. I think that it would be a mess to litigate.

The legislature adjourned the special session on Saturday. So the federal district court judge will impose her plan which will continue to be litigated.

This is the only bill that got through committee but was pulled after it was clear that it could not be passed.

SB 3 (PDF)

Scroll down to see demographics and maps.

I don't want to beat this drum until it has no sound, but you can get to the Gingles percentage for LA-02 without creating too much of a mess as to compactness, athough you do have to do quite a lot of jurisdiction splitting. Having said that, LA-02 may well not be  Gingles CD because the voting pattern is not that racially polarized in NO and Jefferson Parish. There are a significant number of loyal white Democrats.

Then it is a political decision to configure it as a Democratic seat or pack it with Democrats?

Perhaps there will be an amicus to the the Merrill case arguing that applying metrics to measure the percentage of BVAP above 50% is indistinguishable from assigning voters to districts on the basis of race and is therefore unconstitutional.

[I’m not Stu]

SCOTUS will legalize this map.

[Torie]

Black packing via an erose county chopping CD is clearly illegal. You know it and I know it.

Here is an LA-02 that is 50% BVAP.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c99928e7-deaf-4afe-9107-db79b7d97392

[jimrtex]

Black packing via an erose county chopping CD is clearly illegal. You know it and I know it.

Here is an LA-02 that is 50% BVAP.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c99928e7-deaf-4afe-9107-db79b7d97392

What if Louisiana had 7 districts, with a target population of 665,396.

Start chopping from the west end. What does the BVAP increase to?

[Torie]

Black packing via an erose county chopping CD is clearly illegal. You know it and I know it.

Here is an LA-02 that is 50% BVAP.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c99928e7-deaf-4afe-9107-db79b7d97392

What if Louisiana had 7 districts, with a target population of 665,396.

Start chopping from the west end. What does the BVAP increase to?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

[I’m not Stu]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

It's already legal to crack New Orleans.

However I'm assuming you mean New Orlean's black population. It'd likely take the most extreme outcome by the court of gutting the VRA alltogether which is unlikely thouhg certainly not impossible given the balance of the court.

[I’m not Stu]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

It's already legal to crack New Orleans.

However I'm assuming you mean New Orlean's black population. It'd likely take the most extreme outcome by the court of gutting the VRA alltogether which is unlikely thouhg certainly not impossible given the balance of the court.

Unlikely, really?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

It's already legal to crack New Orleans.

However I'm assuming you mean New Orlean's black population. It'd likely take the most extreme outcome by the court of gutting the VRA alltogether which is unlikely thouhg certainly not impossible given the balance of the court.

Unlikely, really?

Firstly, it'd be terrible optics on the courts part especially right before the election. Gerrymandering and voting rights tends to be a winning issue for Dems so if the justices are really hacksih would they really want to potentially cost the GOP? Furthermore, while elimination of the VRA would help the GOP in the South it could help Dems unpack in other places.

Secondly, the question being debated is what qualifies as a VRA district, not really if the VRA is flat out illegal. That'd be quite the step on the courts part.

Thirdly, even if VRA was overturned it's unlikely the GOP would go 6-0 in LA just cause LA isn't a super deep red state. The more likely implications would be a 7-0 AL and the elimination of GA-02. However, if Dems wanted to they could stetch the South Side of Chicago further South and the Nevada gerrymandering case would be moot. If states like Republican states normally without middecade redistricting (TX, GA, AL) are given permission to mid-decade redistrict, so would Dem states and people seem to forget that, especially since they tend to be more diverse on average and hence VRA plays a bigger role in shaping the maps.

[Torie]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

[Torie]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As an intellectual [a masturbatory] exercise, I pretended as to dividing the real estate between LA-01 and LA-02, I would forget about everything except compactness, chops (parish and municipal), and beauty.

I came up with the below. Is LA-02 black performing? Yes, I think so to at least close to a reasonable doubt. Is LA-01 still rock solid Pub? Yes? Will it ever be drawn? No. Part of the reason is that some of the whites placed in LA-02 in this iteration are some of the most virulent racists in the US. It has issues as to soft COI issues as I refer to them, and I am a pretty hard liner when it comes to blowing off soft COI claims.  

Btw, LA has no land contiguity requirement for darn good reasons!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bc9408f5-7d21-4cd6-bbe9-f4425e68ec06

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As an intellectual [a masturbatory] exercise, I pretended as to dividing the real estate between LA-01 and LA-02, I would forget about everything except compactness, chops (parish and municipal), and beauty.

I came up with the below. Is LA-02 black performing? Yes, I think so to at least close to a reasonable doubt. Is LA-01 still rock solid Pub? Yes? Will it ever be drawn? No. Part of the reason is that some of the whites placed in LA-02 in this iteration are some of the most virulent racists in the US. It has issues as to soft COI issues as I refer to them, and I am a pretty hard liner when it comes to blowing off soft COI claims.  

Btw, LA has no land contiguity requirement for darn good reasons!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bc9408f5-7d21-4cd6-bbe9-f4425e68ec06

That's also part of the problem too. There really can't be any rule between "racist" and "nonracist" whites for obvious reasons, though one can argue "racist" whites help make LA-02  amore reliable black functioning seat cause they most likely vote in the R primary.

Also just in general in the South, most "whites" are racist in the sense they don't share the same political interests as black folks. There are very few liberal whites in the South generally so no matter what a district will either be a black pack or include whites who vote opposite to how blacks vote.

[lividnyx]

That seems a reasonable decision, and would simply require election from single-member districts. Single member districts had already been ordered in Texas by White v Regester.

Worth mentioning that multi-member districts are fine, just not majoritarian ones.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That seems a reasonable decision, and would simply require election from single-member districts. Single member districts had already been ordered in Texas by White v Regester.

Worth mentioning that multi-member districts are fine, just not majoritarian ones.

Precisely which ones would be legal, you think?